"Although the coming vote is on a spending bill that began as a $93.4 billion request by Bush, it has grown into a $124.1 billion bill."

"To attract other supporters, Pelosi and her lieutenants bulked up the supplemental with special interest add-ons: $735 million for child health insurance, $400 million in energy assistance payments for the poor, $2.9 billion for hurricane repairs along the Gulf Coast, $2.5 billion for homeland security and $1 billion for flu epidemic preparations"

Its a pretty good plan coming from the Democrats. They bulk it up to get what they want or like you said the chance of Bush vetoing it (not a chance in hell that is going to happen) which won't happen because he would be actually showing that the funds aren't needed which would be a sign of weekness and more amo for the Democrats plan of a possible troop pull out.

I may be wrong but this is my understanding of the Line Item Veto:
Please correct me if I'm wrong.....

Lets say Congressman Jones wants to enact a seatbelt bill through congress......When a bill enters the respective houses of congress, a lot of congressmen will say I'll only vote yes on that bill if this stipulation is added as a piggy back..... example: Congressman Smith wants to legalize partial birth abortions, so he places a line stipulation that if this bill passes so will his bill.....
The line item veto is a way for the checks and balances to pass a law/bill into action without passing the piggyback stipulations.......

The line veto bill has its good points and it has its faults..... but lets not get into that here.

um, correct me if I'M wrong, but isn't over 2/3 of that money going towards a war started by conservatives and supported by conservatives and not really actually helping any non-military U.S. citizens. Hmm. Guess where I think the money is seeing better use?

That makes me say perfect example of "CONSERVATIVES" NOT BEING VERY CONSERVATIVE.

um, correct me if I'M wrong, but isn't over 2/3 of that money going towards a war started by conservatives and supported by conservatives and not really actually helping any non-military U.S. citizens. Hmm. Guess where I think the money is seeing better use?

That makes me say perfect example of "CONSERVATIVES" NOT BEING VERY CONSERVATIVE.

Wait guys, I think your missing the point. It isn't a battle between and

The bill is for funding the war. If they think that money is better spent somewhere else then don't pass the bill.

It's all the extras tagged on to the end of the bill that gets me angry. I know they use this tactic to get votes from people who would otherwise not vote for it. If you read the article you'd see these pork barrel tag on's are put there by to appease some of the other so that they will have enough votes.

See, the democratic party won't defund the war because it is seen by the public as not supporting the troops, but a major part (75) of the dem's DO want to defund, so they are adding on all this extra B.S. to convince them to vote yes.

None of this pork barrel is coming from the other side of the aisle as far as I know. It would be wrong for either party to do this in my opinion.

Utterly nullifies crap like this, which is why it never gets enough "oomph" behind it to get it passed. Newt Gingrich got really, really close back in the "Contract With America" era...

I just don't see politicians taking power away from themselves without the people demanding it.

It sure is needed, but think how little would get done without bribes. Oh wait zero bills have been sent to the president this year anyway, my bad. So much for that first 100 hours. They sure have wasted a lot of time trying to make the president look bad. Like he needs any help in that department.

what chaps my ass is the 2.9 billion for gulf reconstruction. you build you house in a hurricane prone swamp. you should expect your house to be wrecked. And i sure as hell should not be asked to pay for it with my tax dollars when the area i live in suffers from underfunding.